linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] Adding GAUDI NIC code to habanalabs driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:49:36 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        izur@...ana.ai, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, SW_Drivers <SW_Drivers@...ana.ai>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] Adding GAUDI NIC code to habanalabs driver

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 02:22:02PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 18/09/2020 18:28, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:15:52PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sorry, but you won't be able to convince me here that I need to
> >> "enslave" my entire code to RDMA, just because my ASIC "also" has some
> >> RDMA ports.
> >
> > You can't recreate common shared subsystems in a driver just because
> > you don't want to work with the subsystem.
> >
> > I don't care what else the ASIC has. In Linux the netdev part is
> > exposed through netdev, the RDMA part through RDMA, the
> > totally-not-a-GPU part through drivers/misc.
> >
> > It is always been this way. Chelsio didn't get to rebuild the SCSI
> > stack in their driver just because "storage is a small part of their
> > device"
> >
> > Drivers are not allowed to re-implement I2C/SPI/etc without re-using
> > the comon code for that just because "I2C is a small part of their
> > device"
> >
> > Exposing to userspace the creation of RoCE QPs and their related
> > objects are unambiguously a RDMA subsystem task. I don't even know how
> > you think you can argue it is not. It is your company proudly claiming
> > the device has 100G RoCE ports in all the marketing literature, after
> > all.
> >
> > It is too bad the device has a non-standards compliant implementation
> > of RoCE so this will be a bit hard for you. Oh well.
>
> What is considered a RoCE port in this case if it's not compliant with RoCE?

They claim that it is RoCE v2.
https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_1.14_HabanaLabs.Eitan_Medina.v9.pdf

Thanks